About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions
 

Abstract

 

This article in AJ

  1. Vol. 95 No. 2, p. 420-429
     
    Received: Mar 12, 2002


    * Corresponding author(s): jboard@agctr.lsu.edu
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
Request Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2134/agronj2003.4200

Yield Components as Indirect Selection Criteria for Late-Planted Soybean Cultivars

  1. J. E. Board *a,
  2. M. S. Kanga and
  3. M. L. Bodrerob
  1. a Dep. of Agronomy, Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn., LSU Agric. Ctr., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
    b EEA Oliveros INTA, 2206 Oliveros, Santa Fe, Argentina

Abstract

Cultivar selection for late-planted soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in the wheat–soybean doublecropping system is an important production problem. Top-yielding cultivars for late plantings could be selected more efficiently by identification of yield components that indicate top yield, compared with the traditional combine-harvested plot yield method. Our objective was to identify yield components that could be used as indirect selection criteria to identify top-yielding cultivars for late planting dates. A 2-yr study (1998 and 1999) with 26 cultivars was conducted at a mid-July planting at Baton Rouge, LA (30° N, 90° W). A similar study involving 27 different cultivars was conducted for 1 yr at Los Oliveros, Santa Fe Province, Argentina (32°48′ S, 62° W), planted in early January 1999. Experimental designs were randomized complete blocks with four replications and one factor (cultivar). Data were obtained on combine-harvested plot yield, seed m−2, seed size, seed per pod, pods m−2, pods per reproductive node, and reproductive node m−2 Across years, yields at Baton Rouge ranged from 1183 to 2992 kg ha−1, while yields in Argentina ranged from 1688 to 2809 kg ha−1 Yield at Baton Rouge increased with maturity group, whereas in Argentina there was no relationship between yield and maturity group. For both phenotypic and genotypic levels, selection for either seed m−2 or pods m−2 identified top-yielding cultivars, although seed m−2 was more accurate.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2003. American Society of AgronomyPublished in Agron. J.95:420–429.